Forum Discussion
It's the same type of mentality that , when present in upper management, can bury products or companies into the ground. Anthem, Cyberpunk are good examples.
@DoYaSeeMeI'm more than happy to gain insight and be educated on some of these matters but i also don't want you to waste your time doing it just for my sake as i have seen you go through similar things multiple times. You got to get that gaming in too... That's not an unwillingness to learn on my side and also not what this thread is for as i would dm you if that was the case but by all means explain yourself when presenting something for understanding.
I do want to hear there's a better solution because the games state is awful atm (even avid supporters of the game think/say so) and compromise would be each side making concessions finding a middle ground. It doesn't sound like you're doing that. Being told when the game is completely broken that it's the best to the alternatives so nothing is going to change isn't meeting each other half way.
I have tried throwing many ideas out there and shown understanding of the scaling situation at launch ect but we are couple years in now and that's not being reciprocated when looking at it from a purely performance perspective. I'm not talking about the general population but those that want the best out of what they have in a competitive environment, even if it's just extra options client side.
Many/most, if not all users here have these game related issue and while some will voice it, they either don't speak about them anymore because they're tired of it or they know nothing will change. That doesn't change the fact the issues are there.
''I think Respawn should focus on more doable stuff, which can visibly and definitely improve Apex: code optimizations, user experience, transparency, communication, content.''
Giving extra content when the core game is totally broken means nothing and same goes for communication when being told they fixed certain issues but nothing has actually changed which has happened a fair few times now. Just the most recent example being ranked. Actions speak louder than words.
I would like you who is in the industry to come up with potential alternatives, improvements, ideas or anything else that might improve it except toeing the line of Respawn as to why we have what we have and it's the best they can do, because it's currently crap.
Abilities not working, getting shot through doors not milliseconds but full (several) seconds later, unable to pick up items or the game giving visual or audio confirmation but taking to long to process that it's not actually the case are things that could be improved upon. Expensive to fix? Probably, but not impossible.
- damsonwhufndthis5 years agoSeasoned Ace
@apostolateofDOOMI noticed you said flyers and prowlers, I don't even know what prowlers are, but the flyers are 90% of the time flying with an useless blue box with items you already have, the only thing valuable in them that is worth exposing your location by literally shooting them is the healing items, however you usually get so many heals every 100meters I find myself pinging shield cell or syringe sometimes even the bigger heals..
- 5 years ago@apostolateofDOOM I see this game like a race car , currently running in an endurance race ( like Le Mans). Runs fast enough to be a serious podium contender, but has all sorts of issues that have to be fixed during pit stops. The technicians can replace tires, body parts, oil, gas, batteries, but they can't do things like change the engine completely, rewire the whole electrical system, replace the onboard computer or the chassis, because that means losing the race and potentially ruin the championship for the whole team, even if the other racecars do well.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people watching racing who call the technicians incompetent when their favorite racer fails. Some even think that they would handle things better.
Ah, the Dunning Kruger effect... - damsonwhufndthis5 years agoSeasoned Ace
@DoYaSeeMeah yes the Dunning Kruger Effect, one of our most favourite and hated effect there is..
- 5 years ago
@DoYaSeeMe We'll go with you analogy..
If the car is on the pitstop with a flat tyre and everyone is screaming to change it but they're more concerned about the alloys being polished, tuning the stereo and giving the sponsorship logo a lick of paint clearly costing the race then i would say those in the crowd have a justified reason to complain as there were more important and pressing matters that needed attending to.
How is the Dunning Kruger effect applicable when the devs are on mount stupid taking nearly 2 years to implement obvious but also relatively easy fixes that were suggested by the community and myself like increasing the kill cap when ranked was introduced that took them 18 months or being ranked with players in the same tier they didn't actually fix or balancing Wraith when the problem was common knowledge but it took them 8 whole seasons to address it.
These are just from S8 and there are so many other examples of negligence by Respawn that i could go into.
If you meant in my case, i already admitted in my very first post my lack understanding of certain issues (no sense of superiority whatsoever) and why i would like input from someone like you who proclaims to have a deeper understanding of the topic but for some reason you're defending not changing a tyre with not one suggestion or potential alternative they could do to improve it in relation to the first post either now or in the future. How very strange...
Edit: I don't want to get into pointless debate with you if you're not willing or able to add something that could potentially come out of it.
- 5 years ago@apostolateofDOOM Game engines (physics, audio), network system are core things , they are the motors and structure of the car, not the tires. That's where the Dunning Kruger effect comes to this discussion. Players are around that mount stupid, they think it's the tires and stress on replacing them. It's necessarily a choice, or an unusual or bad thing that they are there, it's more of a reality. They just don't possess the knowledge to understand nor the time to acquire enough wisdom to move further. Devs have many years of experience, so they are on the slope of enlightenment (which is not smooth, it is actually like a Dunning Kruger curve in shape as well). And there, the slope is harsh and endless, with a lot of small stupid peaks from where they can fall hard, even back to the valley of despair. This is one of the reasons they're so silent and the world has proven that it's better to shut up than to say stuff like "it runs surprisingly well on console" or "graphics that you see in the presentation won't be downgraded".
People with experience don't necessarily have more solutions. They bring up only those that are realistic and can surpass the existing ones, or are comparable at least. And again, because there isn't any better solution in sight, it doesn't mean that the current one is perfect or even acceptable. I have colleagues that avoid multiplayer games that rely on fast reflexes, simply for the fact that they know there's no way to get rid of lag, no matter what anyone promises, they just don't want to deal with the frustration. - 5 years ago
@damsonwhufndthis Prowlers are those things at bloodhounds trials. I only brought that up because as you said they're both basically useless that doesn't really enrich the experience but is a extra load on the servers.
@DoYaSeeMeThis is why i'm chucking everything out there to be discussed so those in the know in such matters could explain if or why something was or isn't possible, if not now then perhaps in the future.
Separate servers for ranked/competitive.Change or optimise the way packets are sent.
Removing or lowing the load on servers.
Clients choosing their own rates.
Different competitive modes with less players so it doesn't effect performance as much?
Server selector - We already discussed this and i agree for most instant is better but from a purely competitive perspective i think choice would improve the situation.
Changes to lag compensation or limiting the possible ping in a match.
If not these then maybe something else? Throw me a bone here.. - 5 years ago@apostolateofDOOM Ok, so
Separate servers for ranked / competitive - There are different queues, so they kinda go to separate servers. Problem with ranked / competitive is the density. They're fewer and more spread, which can lead to more distant servers.
Change / optimize the way packets are sent - There really isn't much to do here, as the data inside is just a bunch of coordinates and id's. To make packets smaller, they could compress them (more), but that would make too much use of processing power, increasing lag significantly (including the worst of all, input lag). Reducing the data that is sent is also hardly an option. Also, some additional security measures have the potential to increase the packet sizes...
Reducing load on servers - That can be done by redistributing the players a little bit, like booking another server when the first one is at let's say 75% capacity, with the conditions that the new one is within 10-20ms distance and becomes available in the next 20-30 seconds tops. But this would also increase overall lag a little and keep more servers occupied at the same time. A similar way would be to lower the limit of matches per server, but this is a thing about granularity. Not sure that, if a match would use, let's say, 1 server cpu core, that could be changed into using a fraction of another cpu core as well, instead of jumping to 2 cpu cores directly. Probably not , and jumping from 1 to 2 cpu cores per match means straight up doubling the number of servers required by Apex. Server guys would laugh then quickly faint hearing something like this 🙂
Higher tickrates and choice - Current tickrates are probably 60Hz+ for the client updates and like 20Hz for the server updates. Most consoles and even a decent part of PCs can't deal with more than 60Hz, but what we care about the most is the server going up. What does this mean though? Well, servers would need to process the game logic faster, but not just 5%, no no. 2x-3x faster! This is even worse than doubling server capacity, because putting 2 to work together is hardly doubling the speed of processing.
Other modes - this divides the playerbase. They know this first hand, from Titanfall 2, that's why they avidly avoid it.
Lag compensation - Not much that can be done about this. The main problem is with the time it takes for the data to travel from clients to server and back, which can't be reduced by Respawn. Only ISPs have some limited ways to shorten the path a little.
Ping Limitation - This would be ineffective with the current state of the network. There is a lot of instability, anyone can have good averages but experience horrible spikes and timeouts. The limiter would just add to the punishment, by not allowing people to play from time to time or even taking them out of matches all of a sudden.
Other ways to make the lag go away? LAN. Possible to have a global network to support Apex.? Nope. takes years evenf if you cover the billions needed.
Only hope is in code refactoring. Maybe devs find some stuff that can be simplified and thus save a few miliseconds per frame, but this is a very tedious process, as we are talking about millions of lines of code.. - 5 years ago
@DoYaSeeMeDoes code refactoring address any of the problems i mentioned?
I forgot about this thread so sorry for late reply. 🥳
- 5 years ago@apostolateofDOOM Code refactoring is always done to optimize things, it's usually happening where/when the code gets too messy because of a lot of patching or when there's new tech or device
related features available that the game could benefit from. - 5 years ago
@DoYaSeeMeSounds like we desperately need some of that then.
What about an upgrade to a new engine? Remember it's nearly Easter!! - 5 years ago@apostolateofDOOM Game engines take many years. Not worth it.
- 5 years ago
@DoYaSeeMeI think you missed the Easter part... 😛
How come Fortnite and other games did it then? We have a 10yr plan, apparently... - 5 years ago@apostolateofDOOM Unreal engine has a different license model than Source. Also, Apex uses a heavily modified Source engine, so a move to Source 2 would be more of a chore than an upgrade.
But have you seen any FPS similar to Apex / Titanfall in terms of complexity? - 5 years ago
@DoYaSeeMeIf the game is in this state after 2 years what's it going to be like in 5 let alone 10 the devs said they had for Apex...
You mean complex like projectiles instead of hitscan? Battlefields? They also got server upgrades after backlash.
I don't think that servers are the sole problem as it's probably more the spaghetti network coding of the game from all the updates that needs addressing as it's only after updates the problem keeps getting worse.
Better movement and generally much faster gameplay? Dirty bomb, they have much smaller players per match but it's very responsive and more stable than Apex when support stopped for that game years ago and they also had an instant play and server selector.
Using an outdated engine that's limited by todays standards doesn't makes sense for the time they want to keep this game running especially when their competitors are already announcing those upgrades.Edit: Regardless of limitations of the game engine or comparing it to other titles. It's not my fault they made a service that's to complex for them to run effectively or make it future proof.. That's what they get paid for and in comparison to others, some much older titles, they're doing a pretty poor job.
- 5 years ago@DoYaSeeMe Quake, Unreal tournament, W:ET, Forge, Evolve (game), spellbreak, counter strike global offensive.
Heck even half-life.
Also people should remember, Apex legends is only a mod by a smaller team from Titanfall 2, re-used skins and audio. So no way they could ever fix the mess when they don't know half what the code does. - 5 years ago@KarvaRausku Those games are less complex from a code perspective at least: simpler movement, less features (items, abilities, interactions, etc), hitscan weapons, small maps, less players per map, etc..
As for the Apex legends being a Titanfall mod turned into a game, I can say the same about Fortnite BR and there are tons of other games that get developed this way, there's almost none developed from absolute scratch nowadays.
The assumption that the devs don't know what half the code does can be applied to every programmer in the world nowadays. For example, I'm currently working in Unity, but I have no idea what happens inside the engine, and that is not my job anyway, there are dedicated devs working on Unity development. It's the difference between using tools and developing tools.
Anyway, Respawn devs have a modified engine, which means they know more about its features than they would know about Unreal engine, for example. Also, they have the experience of not only Titanfall, but Call of Duty, as some of the veteran devs come from Infinity Ward. They're some of the most experienced FPS devs around. - 5 years ago@apostolateofDOOM switching to a different engine would change how he game feels dramatically. After a few years, we could be getting a worse experience, still filled with bugs. The odds are high, like 50%. Now why would someone spend years and millions for that, when it isn't even for a new title, that aims to bring something fresh? To go bankrupt or in debt?
- 5 years ago
@DoYaSeeMeThat's still 50% it'll improve and the problems will be there regardless after a few years of updates anyway, at least the engine can handle it, likely much better than current. I also don't see why they can't make similar modifications to source 2 or equivalent in Unreal and port it. If it doesn't feel the same they can change things to make it similar or even much better than before as they're not as limited. How are they going to stay up to date for 10yrs at this rate?
This isn't a product, it's a live service so they can bring something fresh during an upgrade season easily... That's one of the benefits of what they're doing and what Fortnite did.
Why would they do it? Because all their competitors are already upgrading and they want to stay relevant for next gen. Why would you risk going into debt making a whole new game when you have a successful one with a huge player base sat there already asking for those upgrades? - 5 years ago@apostolateofDOOM As far as I know Source 2 is not available to non Valve titles. And I have yet to see a fps multiplayer similar to Apex, made on Unreal engine, to even consider porting the game to the new engine.
Anyway, the state of the game is far from the point where porting would make sense. It's actually very playable and my opinion is backed up by millions voting with their wallets. And we can't speak of real competition so far. - 5 years ago
@DoYaSeeMe My opinion is backed by the countless threads all over the internet, regulars on AHQ, from casuals to pros, almost all content creators (except those sponsored by EA) who all say the performance is bad. Many have already left the game because of this, especially on PC. I would even go as far to say that even those that still enjoy the game acknowledge there's some serious core issues but the positives outweigh the negatives or they just love the game regardless. Some just have more money than sense in a lot of cases or don't bother arguing this fact as they know that in all likely hood things won't change so they make the best of it..
This is an EA game after all.
The recent poll showed nearly 50% only play Apex because there's nothing currently better and likely because of investing in the BP not wanting to miss out in the future.. Not because they enjoy it. That's really bad.
The reason it's being backed by peoples wallets is because of new markets like next gen consoles, Steam, Switch and Mobile coming soon. Those that have been here since release are now more reluctant to invest in the game because of the core problems or the way they handle Apex. Just ask @MandatoryIDtag who was a marine mammal or even @DarthValtrex who is the paragon of positivity on the forums who isn't happy about lowering particle FX count to accommodate Switch players for example. The game is naturally degrading without TLC i doubt anyone can deny and they're intentionally doing it at the cost of others user experience. They don't even put half these backend changes in the patch notes.
Inconsistent matches, broken ranked, SBMM, forced LTMS, buggy updates, broken audio, slow and delayed server response, hitreg, actions not happening like using abilities or picking up items and generally sluggish performance are majorly hindering the game.
Is the game playable? Sure. Is it good? No chance.
Edit: This is meant to be a thread with suggestion of what they can do to make it better remember and not reasons they can't do it.
- 5 years ago
@apostolateofDOOM Yup, my whale days are loooooong gone. As much as I love Apex legends, from the lore to the character and map concepts....I just can't invest in a game with so many flaws.
I used to be Mr Positivity just like darth but that wore off over time lol. 😛
I shall continue to lurk in hope of solid improvements.
- 5 years ago
- 5 years ago@KarvaRausku When someone gets personal with me, in a demeaning or condescending manner, it's a sign that they lack proper arguments, so I don't bother with their emotionally biased opinions.
- 5 years ago@DoYaSeeMe I'm just stating that your experience and knowledge in video games is lacking.
- 5 years ago@KarvaRausku Well, you don't know me, so your statement is invalid.
About Apex Legends General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 4 hours ago